Think tanks are organizations dedicated to generating research and studies to influence and advise the political class and society (Misztal, 2012; Stone, 2007) that leverage objective scientific analysis to influence policymaking (Lyu et al., 2023). Like universities and political parties, think tanks present possible solutions to societal challenges (Castillero-Ostio et al., 2025). In this context, it is common for these institutions to transcend the political boundary and perpetuate their influence in the social sphere through the media (Almiron and Xifra, 2021; Landry, 2021). The ability of think tanks to influence the media narrative is due, in part, to their ability to establish close relationships with the media (McDonald, 2014) and present complex information in an accessible and persuasive way for the general public and policymakers (Medvetz, 2012). This idea is linked to McLuhan’s (1964) theory on how the medium can modify the perception of the message. In this sense, think tanks can expand their impact by adapting their messages to different media formats. Scholars have analyzed and evaluated the influence of think tanks on the media, both in print and on television, radio or digital channels (Castillo-Esparcia et al., 2017; Castelló-Sirvent and Roger-Monzó, 2021; Castelló-Sirvent et al., 2021; Roger-Monzó and Castelló-Sirvent, 2020; Lewis and Cushion, 2019; McDonald, 2014; Castillo-Esparcia et al., 2020; Castillo and Smolak, 2016, 2017). Their impact has been diverse, depending fundamentally on the communication strategies used, the alignment with government agendas, and the ideological orientation (Lalueza and Girona, 2016; McDonald, 2014; Rich and Weaver, 2000; Roger-Monzó and Castelló-Sirvent, 2020).

Anderson et al. (2017) define think tanks as entities that combine research, journalism, and political activism. The authors emphasize that the pre-eminence of these institutions has increased in recent decades due to their ability to quickly and efficiently promote knowledge in multiple social fields: political, economic, and media. In this sense, previous research highlights that think tanks act at the intersections of various social contexts, enabling their influence in multiple sectors simultaneously. They are formed as “border organizations” due to their ability to move between these fields (Medvetz, 2012). Similarly, think tanks are considered “brokers” of knowledge, facilitating the exchange between diverse actors and sectors, which has been vital in disseminating ideas and policies (Ansel et al., 2009).

As boundary organizations think tanks work with actors from diverse spheres and, importantly, draw “their own legitimacy from these other spheres” (Pautz, 2020, p. 5). In this context, Campbell and Pedersen (2014) explore how think tanks have complemented or transformed existing “knowledge regimes,” that is, the systems of organizations and institutions dedicated to producing and integrating knowledge into policy formulation.

Think tanks collaborate closely with universities, media, and other actors in policy formulation and evaluation (McGann and Messner, 2023; González Hernando and Williams, 2018). Not surprisingly, these organizations are part of widely funded networks that connect media outlets, political parties, interest groups, corporations, international organizations, civil society organizations, and civil service bureaucracies (Anderson et al., 2017; Pautz, 2020).

The reputation of think tanks is essential, as they lack the institutional legitimacy inherent to universities, which enjoy historical recognition as knowledge generators. This legitimacy of the research produced within them is reinforced by an accepted system of merit evaluation based on the scientific impact of their academic publications (Chuliá, 2018). According to González Hernando and Williams (2018), peer-reviewed articles in high-impact scholarly journals remain essential for obtaining a position of academic authority.

On the other hand, both think tanks and universities share an interest in producing and disseminating knowledge (Chuliá, 2018), although their agendas do not always align (Abelson, 2024). Traditionally, universities have emerged as the leading knowledge producers, and their research has impacted public policy. However, the growing influence of think tanks has challenged this hegemony, becoming major competitors of universities in generating knowledge and expert analysis (Almiron and Xifra, 2021), increasingly occupying spaces previously dominated by academic public intellectuals (Misztal, 2012). Think tank experts have replaced academic intellectuals in many public debates, particularly in the media, where they present themselves as authoritative voices (Posner, 2001). This change is because think tanks effectively produce accessible and timely knowledge. However, their ideological objectives call into question their independence and critical commitment, which characterize academic intellectuals (Misztal, 2012).

In this context, universities have difficulties competing with think tanks regarding media and political impact since they need more resources or strategies to position their research on the media or political agenda (Wiarda, 2015; Anderson et al., 2017). Although academic research by universities is recognized for its rigor, it tends to have a more limited circulation because it is not always adapted to the immediate demands of public debate. This circumstance could affect their influence on certain political decisions (Dumas and Anderson, 2014), although their contributions are usually integrated into public agendas in the long term (Wu, 2018). “While university research is oriented towards disciplinary debates and publication in academic outlets, think tank research is typically oriented towards current policy debates and more accessible publications aimed at policymakers” (Christensen and Holst, 2020, p. 226–227). Competition between academic institutions and the success of think tanks when they attract media and political attention (Anderson et al., 2017) have motivated universities to initiate programs to encourage their visibility in the media to enhance their ability to influence public debate and position their research as a key resource for decision-making (González Enríquez, 2018).

Schlesinger (2009) describes think tank experts as “media intellectuals” whose ability to simplify complex problems for broad audiences has made them more visible in public discourse than their academic counterparts. Think tanks offer alternative channels for advising policymakers, challenging the primacy of academia and research institutes in providing knowledge (Craft and Howlett, 2013). Many think tank contributors are university researchers, but their research is viewed with reservations by those solely engaged in academic research. The reasons are twofold: such research is attributed with less scientific rigor; think tanks operate as collaborators of established elites, to whom they ultimately legitimize and justify (Chuliá, 2018).

Some academics seek a more direct impact on public policy, but funding models limit their ability to act as agents of change. In many cases, they depend on funding from organizations that may compromise their ability to conduct independent research (Slaughter and Rhoades, 2004). Therefore, it is confirmed that there are not two types of researchers but two forms of activity (González Enríquez, 2018).

The ambivalence between the search for academic legitimacy and the ideological agenda of think tanks contributes to the selective dissemination of knowledge. This circumstance raises questions about its impact on the quality of public debate and democratic deliberation (Christensen and Holst, 2020). In the 21st century, think tanks face an “epistemic crisis” motivated by losing faith in experts and information contamination and overload (Pautz, 2020). However, “the scientific attitude allows the persuasive role of think tanks to be filled with legitimate content” (Almiron and Xifra, 2021, p. 113) since “without expert knowledge, a think tank is a mere instrument of influence or even propaganda” (Almiron and Xifra, 2021, p. 149). Hagland (2023) suggests that academic publications of think tanks serve as a significant indicator of their influence on public policy. Think tanks affect academic communications by publishing research accepted in scientific journals, indicating the acceptance of their ideas in academia (Douglass and Tanner, 2012).

As think tanks seek to influence public policymaking by producing and disseminating specialized knowledge, they need to exert significant influence on the academic debate through various tactics, such as collaborating with universities to leverage their academic credibility and the intellectual resources these institutions can offer (Abelson, 2024). Although think tanks have different priorities in the area of research, some of these habitual actions take the form of employing highly trained teams of researchers (Lyu et al., 2023), many of them with PhDs in specific areas, to offer high-quality research products (Wu, 2018; Weaver, 1989). “Only by first ensuring high standards and high quality of research results will it be possible to further influence the decisions of policymakers” (Wu, 2018, p. 33). Chuliá (2018) points out that the reports and analyses required by think tanks are often carried out by university professors who apply criteria of intellectual demand and scientific rigor to their work. Wu (2018) agrees with this idea, adding the drive for interdisciplinary studies integrating diverse perspectives to address complex problems. It also highlights the implementation by various think tanks of rigorous internal review mechanisms to ensure the objectivity and impartiality of their research. Furthermore, it underlines that some think tanks have created their own graduate schools to combine scientific research with the training of future experts and thus prioritize academic excellence as the basis of their influence (Wu, 2018).

In addition, think tanks build extensive networks of experts who act as advisors or affiliated researchers. This allows them to maximize their influence, access various perspectives and expertise, and expand their analytical capacity (McGann and Messner, 2023). University-affiliated think tanks must preserve their autonomy to operate effectively and maintain their influence in the academic debate. This independence allows them to choose research topics and collaborate with experts without external interference, which is essential to maintain the integrity and relevance of their research and influence the academic debate (Lyu et al., 2023). These actions position think tanks as a reference source on specific topics, granting them scientific legitimacy and amplifying their impact in the academic environment.

This article contributes to the academic literature by better understanding the impact of think tanks in this context. The media influence of think tanks has received greater scholarly attention than the limited attention devoted to their effect on the scientific debate. At the same time, the publication of scientific articles subject to double-masked peer review overcomes the limitations of perception and credibility positioning of university researchers who rely on funding from think tanks. The gap in research on the influence strategies of think tanks on the academic debate underlines the need to examine how these institutions influence the research agenda. Unlike their visible influence on the media, their impact among scholars is more subtle but equally significant.

The influence strategies of think tanks on the academic debate through funding research and publications can be analyzed using Marshall McLuhan’s theory (the medium is the message). Thus, the medium through which a message is transmitted influences the perception of its content and, by extension, how society assimilates or interprets that message. This idea can be applied to analyzing how think tanks, acting as intermediaries in producing and disseminating academic knowledge, can condition research content, the perception of their proposals, and the legitimacy of certain narratives within the educational field.

This article aims to conduct an exploratory analysis of how think tanks impact the academic debate of scholars, specifically through their scientific publications in high-impact journals. Articles published between 2008 and 2023, funded by think tanks specialized in environmental policy, were examined. Additionally, two sub-periods were constructed before and after the start of the 2030 Agenda, and the evolution of the areas of interest of the think tanks was evaluated. VOSviewer 1.6.20 was used to compare the corpus of scientific publications and the main international collaboration networks between authors who published these articles.

This research significantly contributes to the literature on the influence of think tanks, providing valuable insights into how these organizations introduce and moderate their message in high-impact academic forums. The main novelty of this study is that it offers a guide to researchers and practitioners on the evolution of power dynamics of environmental policy think tanks after the start of the 2030 Agenda, a topic of great relevance and interest in the current academic and policy landscape. By understanding these power dynamics, researchers and practitioners can better navigate the academic and policy landscape, making informed decisions and contributing to the advancement of environmental policy.

The article is structured as follows: First, the materials and methods section is presented, showing the process of building the database of articles used and the primary analysis methodologies applied. Next, the results of the research are presented according to the trends identified in the generic strategies of funding academic research, the specific plan of influence and scientific impact, the analysis of the central thematic clusters of research funded by think tanks, and the strategies of simultaneous co-funding of research by more than one think tank. Finally, the discussion section presents the main findings regarding the evolution of the strategy, preferred funding themes, and co-funding strategies to establish the conclusions of the article, its limitations, and suggestions for future lines of research.

A bibliometric analysis is carried out as it allows a quantitative and qualitative perspective to determine the degree to which think tanks manage to position their interests, narratives, and priorities in the academic field. This methodology facilitates the analysis of metrics (e.g., volume of publications, collaboration between authors, and representative keywords), focusing on think tanks’ participation in academic production. Thus, it is possible to determine their capacity to influence scientific knowledge and global research agendas.

The think tanks included in the Global Go To Think Tank Index 2020 Report were selected within the environmental policy category (McGann, 2021), given that it was our object of study. This category provides a sample of 99 think tanks. This ranking is used because it is a consolidated reference in the analysis of think tanks, and its methodology combines expert evaluation, surveys, and impact analysis. It should be noted that this index identifies some entities as think tanks, although they have not traditionally been considered as such. This is the case of the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), which is defined as a think tank for its influence on policies and dissemination of ideas related to the environment, generation of knowledge, and impact on global strategic thinking.

Web of Science was used, and all articles published in journals indexed in the Journal Citation Reports (JCR) were selected, specifically in the Science Social Sciences Citation Index (SSCI) and Science Citation Index Expanded (SCIE). This established as a search criterion that these articles had obtained funding from one of the think tanks under study at any time and in any category of Web of Science. To search, both names of each think tank were used, original and standardized in English.

The Web of Science database results were grouped into two subsamples, according to two periods. The periods were constructed by setting the beginning of the 2030 Agenda as the threshold, taking into account the emerging issues driven by the sociotechnical transitions enacted by the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) (Sapinski, 2019; Kickbusch and Hanefeld, 2017) and by bibliographic evidence on the transformation of the academic debate on sustainability and environment policy from the threshold that 2015 represents (Roger-Monzó et al., 2023).

Period 1 included articles published from the first article funded by a think tank (2008) to the year before the beginning of the 2030 Agenda (2015). Period 2 included articles published from the start of the 2030 Agenda (2016) to 2023.

Next, following Castelló-Sirvent (2022), each article’s Normalized Impact per Year (NIY) was calculated. The Average Impact per Year (AIY) of the articles funded by each think tank was calculated for each of the two periods according to the average NIY of the articles funded by each think tank.

Additionally, the bibliometric software VOS viewer 1.6.20 (Van Eck and Waltman, 2010) was used to perform a keyword co-occurrence analysis for the articles included in each subsample to identify the main thematic clusters of each period. VOS viewer allows mapping the academic production of a specific topic (López-Robles et al., 2021).

This exploratory study has confirmed that think tanks deploy different strategies to impact the academic debate and, in this way, achieve greater legitimacy of the knowledge they disseminate. They found that they favor publishing scholarly articles in high-impact scientific journals through their funding. Likewise, by funding research, they contribute to building a knowledge network, maximizing their influence, and increasing their analytical capacity. This finding is in line with Abelson’s approach (2024).

Although previous research maintains that obtaining funds from institutions such as think tanks could compromise the independence of their studies (Slaughter and Rhoades, 2004), the strategies identified in this article are configured around high-impact journals subject to anonymous peer review. Following Chuliá (2018), this form of academic influence manages to unite the legitimization and justification of researchers and the universities they are affiliated with. Additionally, the evidence found shows that both the scholars and the think tanks whose funds financed their research preserve their academic reputation as the high-impact journals where they publish their articles are audited by institutions such as Clarivate to guarantee the quality of the peer review processes by SSCI and SCIE standards. However, this circumstance does not prevent think tanks from prioritizing specific topics and perspectives when financing research that favors their ideological inclinations and impacts the quality of the public and democratic debate (Christensen and Holst, 2020). This idea connects with McLuhan’s conceptual framework (1964). As funders of knowledge, think tanks can shape the form and content of the messages that emerge from academia.

This research has allowed us to explore the use of these strategies by think tanks. The trend detected suggests a generalization of the moderation of scientific debate through funding research in high-impact journals. It is clear that after the 2030 Agenda, think tanks increased their influencing activity. In addition, in the analysis of their average per think tank, the normalized impact per year reports a greater efficiency in the capacity of the scientific implications of the funded articles. The bibliometric analysis thus provides evidence on the thematic cores of the 2030 Agenda preferred by think tanks, whose impetus is supported by the funding of these investigations. This finding reports a progressive change in the approach of think tanks.

The comparison between the research topics of the periods before and after the 2030 Agenda reflects a significant change in the focus and priorities of the scientific community toward more comprehensive and long-term objectives. Before the 2030 Agenda, studies focused on specific aspects of sustainability and adaptation to climate change, emphasizing environmental phenomena such as deforestation, air quality, and biodiversity. The research was distributed in particular geographical areas, such as Africa, China, Indonesia, and the Amazon, and addressed critical issues, but from a perspective in which human impact on ecosystems still needed to be treated in an integrated or multidimensional manner.

In contrast, with the start of the 2030 Agenda, there is evidence of an evolution in the academic discourse funded by think tanks, moving toward an approach that integrates sustainable development and the circular economy. The research analyses environmental impacts and addresses issues such as the life cycle of products, food security, governance, and risks, thus considering a more holistic perspective. The emergence of new topics such as the circular economy, climate change mitigation, and uncertainty analysis in the face of climate phenomena underlines a more coordinated and proactive response to the climate crisis, oriented toward global sustainability rather than focusing solely on local environmental issues.

Analyzing the co-financing strategies of scientific research has allowed us to understand that academic articles published in high-impact journals address various topics in sustainability, health, and conservation of natural resources. Networks of experts are configured through the co-financing of research, contributing to the generation of academic alliances that maximize the analytical capacity of scholars and the possibilities of impact and influence of think tanks in the educational debate. Below, the themes of the main articles co-financed by the think tanks under study are highlighted.

Integrating eco-health with watershed management in ecological health is studied to reduce health inequalities and strengthen social-ecological resilience (Bunch et al., 2011). Related to changes in land use, Jagger and Shively (2014) analyze the impact of these on biomass use and respiratory health in Uganda, and Falchetta et al. (2019) assess electrification in sub-Saharan Africa.

In addition, some articles analyze fiscal policies, such as CO₂ taxes in Europe that affect sales of lower-emission vehicles (Klier and Linn, 2015) or occupational exposure to pollution in Kenya, which entails public health risks (Ngo et al., 2015). On carbon capture issues, Shitashima et al. (2013) assess techniques for detecting CO₂ leaks in underwater storage. The impact of deforestation on the use of biomass fuels in Uganda is also studied in terms of air quality and access to energy (Jagger and Kittner, 2017).

Regarding energy efficiency, homeowners’ behavior toward insulation in Germany is analyzed using an agent-based model (Friege, 2016). Willingness to pay for electricity service improvements is examined in India, focusing on the role of social trust (Blankenship et al., 2019). On the other hand, adopting electric vehicles is explored, considering socioeconomic and policy factors in various countries (Zimm, 2021). Ethiopian agriculture is analyzed from a general equilibrium model to understand the economic effects of climate change (Gebreegziabher et al., 2016). The Governance Prism model is used in watershed management to understand the intersection between watershed management and public health (Bunch et al., 2014). In the context of ecosystem services, the demand for certification of these services is assessed under the Forest Stewardship Council framework (Jaung et al., 2016). Predator species dynamics in Canada, the impact of wildfires in boreal basins, and the economic costs of traffic restrictions in Beijing represent other research focuses on sustainability (Kennedy et al., 2018; Emmerton et al., 2019; Blackman et al., 2020).

The findings of the reviewed studies reflect the diversity of impacts in the sustainability and environmental policies field. Pegels and Lütkenhorst (2014) suggest an energy balance for a sustainable transition in a study based in Germany, as they find that wind energy is more efficient than solar energy. Bunch et al. (2011) highlight that participatory and transdisciplinary approaches improve health equity outcomes in public health. In Uganda, an increase in respiratory infections in children is reported due to the intensive use of low-quality fuels (Jagger and Shively, 2014), and a dataset details the quality and distribution of electricity in sub-Saharan Africa, guiding infrastructure policies (Falchetta et al., 2019).

Regarding fiscal policy, CO₂ taxes have been shown to reduce sales of polluting vehicles, particularly in France (Klier and Linn, 2015). Exposure to road emissions in Kenya represents a severe public health risk for urban workers (Ngo et al., 2015), while CO₂ leak detection techniques effectively manage carbon capture sites (Shitashima et al., 2013). Furthermore, deforestation in Uganda increases dependence on lower-quality fuels, affecting health and energy access (Jagger and Kittner, 2017).

From an energy efficiency perspective, non-financial incentives and mandatory measures can increase insulation in homes in Germany (Friege, 2016). The study by Blankenship et al. (2019) highlights that social trust is critical to willingness to pay for electricity service reforms. Zimm (2021) observes that international and local policies are essential for adopting electric vehicles. In Ethiopia, climate change is expected to reduce agricultural productivity, requiring adaptation policies (Gebreegziabher et al., 2016).

This exploratory study provides a novelty in the academic literature on think tank influence strategies in the scholarly debate on environmental policy. Specifically, it has studied the promotion of the research agenda through financing articles, according to funds from think tanks.

This research has limitations. First, the data source used. The selection of the University of Pennsylvania ranking (McGann, 2021) determines the think tanks for whose funding sources the articles were searched in the Web of Science. Its recognition in the literature and its adoption in numerous studies on think tanks validate this ranking as a reliable source. In addition, it provides standardized criteria based on a rigorous methodology, which mitigates possible biases in data selection, and its use constitutes a solid and justified starting point for the present study. However, the need to explore additional directories in future research is recognized to help the sample analyzed. This study focuses on environmental policy think tanks, giving rise to a precise selection that, although not generalizable to all think tanks, allows for identifying significant patterns.

Likewise, this study focuses on articles published in journals indexed in the Journal Citation Reports (JCR), as it excludes other indexes (e.g., Emerging Sources Citation Index) or databases (e.g., Scopus or Arxiv). Future research could expand the data sources by also including chapters and books.

This article presents a methodological guide for researchers interested in analyzing the academic debate driven by think tanks, with an emphasis on building frames and counter-frames around issues such as the anthropogenic nature of climate change, economic approaches to ESG (Environmental, Social, and Governance) criteria and socio-technical transitions toward sustainability promoted by the European Union. The proposed methodology allows for a rigorous assessment of the evolution of these debates, providing tools to analyze their impact on academic, political and social narratives.

Regarding the coherence of institutional attitudes, changes in funding strategies and research priorities reflect the diversity and dynamism of these actors, providing a new vision of their trajectories.

In future research, this approach can be applied to explore issues related to the themes on sustainability and climate change promoted by think tanks, as well as their relationship with recent global events that influence the academic and political agenda, such as energy transitions and climate governance strategies. This methodological framework not only allows for identifying key patterns and themes but also provides a solid basis for assessing the impact of think tanks in promoting discursive frames that guide public policies and scientific debates.